Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

matteast.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 219 posts

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#111

Post by maxglute »

The chance of US debasing currency to dig out of debt hole by brrrrting money printer is not zero.

But 15 years is also plenty of time for PRC to establish reusable and lithography to invalidate SpaceX valuation rational by driving terrestrial dc and launch to commodity prices. It's like EVs, anything PRC decides to prioritize industrially, competitors going to have a bad time, but still doesn't stop market for valuating Tesla more than all PRC auto producers combined.

Would not be out of question for finance bros to figure out how to continue decoupling valuation from reality if that keeps system going.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#112

Post by xboxnolifes »

kilroy123 wrote: post #62
d_silin wrote: post #32

SpaceX already blown through a number of "... but this cannot be!" forecasts. Would not discount them easily.

I was thinking about this lately as well. If you break down their plan of launching a LOT of solar panels into space and strapping a GPU cluster to it. It's not _that_ crazy now. Prices for solar panels have dropped 90% in the last 10 years. Price per kilo to Low Earth Orbit has dropped ~50% in the last 10 years. SpaceX's entire plan is to keep dropping both of these prices down even more with massive solar panel / s…

Well outside my field, but I was under the impression that getting the energy into the GPU (solar) was not the problem. The problem is getting the heat out. It takes a lot of surface area to radiate out the heat that GPUs produce. Maybe it ends up economical, but just having it in space adds in a bunch of challenges, not least that once it's up there you can't send in a technician to troubleshoot.

And if solar panels drop another 90%, why not just slap them on earth?

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#113

Post by stetrain »

wnmurphy wrote: post #57
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla spent almost years scraping by, almost went bankrupt in 2018, had three years of "exceeds expectation" from 2020 to 2023 and is now being murdered by competitors. A lot of "income" comes from selling regulatory credits, not cars. FSD is up to v14 and there is no sense in which it's "Full", or is likely to be "Full" any time soon. The early computer industry created a good few companies which achieved profitabil…

> FSD is up to v14 and there is no sense in which it's "Full", or is likely to be "Full" any time soon. I think the SpaceX IPO is way overvalued, but have you actually tried FSD v14 yourself? My car has 8-year old hardware running v12, and it handles like 90+% of my driving. When I test drove 14 it blew my mind how good it had gotten in only 8 months of development. In my opinion, there's question that it's "when," n…

> it's "when," not "if."

That has always been the question since Elon started making self-driving claims back in 2016. If you believed him any time up until now you'd have been wrong and potentially own a car that will never drive without a responsible human in the driver's seat.

Another question is how many resources each "self-driving" car needs to complete its task. All of the major self-driving taxi providers do have monitoring staff who need to intervene occasionally to get the car unstuck from some situations.

If you need to pay one monitor per 10 cars you can run a taxi service in specific markets but it's pretty hard to roll that out to a fleet of millions of personally-owned cars.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#115

Post by shimman »

nemomarx wrote: post #105
shimman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eh, am very biased as I design similar sites but I honestly prefer these to what would be likely string of random social media posts. I like having relevant graphics stickied while text is displayed alongside it (assuming by blog post you mean the typical page-like top to bottom approach). edit: damn, if these designs are hated what modern approaches do people like? I feel like scroll based text is a relatively unexp…

I want it to be something you could reproduce in print, though. As close to what I'd get putting it in reader mode as possible. We've spent a long time optimizing the printed word, including pages with diagrams and illustrations on them. You don't need to reinvent the wheel for every blog

I mean if you want print views (reader mode in firefox works well if the dev took the time to structure everything semantically), definitely use the print functionality. Maybe I'm one of the last people that still makes print media queries, but I do find value in them especially since they're quite easy to make.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#116

Post by nozzlegear »

shimman wrote: post #52
square_usual wrote: post #29

[flagged]

eh, am very biased as I design similar sites but I honestly prefer these to what would be likely string of random social media posts. I like having relevant graphics stickied while text is displayed alongside it (assuming by blog post you mean the typical page-like top to bottom approach). edit: damn, if these designs are hated what modern approaches do people like? I feel like scroll based text is a relatively unexp…

> edit: damn, if these designs are hated what modern approaches do people like? I feel like scroll based text is a relatively unexplored idea compared to the typical blog post.

The New York Times generally does the "lots of data, text and graphs in a scrolling presentation" tastefully.

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#117

Post by qaq »

kilroy123 wrote: post #62
d_silin wrote: post #32

SpaceX already blown through a number of "... but this cannot be!" forecasts. Would not discount them easily.

I was thinking about this lately as well. If you break down their plan of launching a LOT of solar panels into space and strapping a GPU cluster to it. It's not _that_ crazy now. Prices for solar panels have dropped 90% in the last 10 years. Price per kilo to Low Earth Orbit has dropped ~50% in the last 10 years. SpaceX's entire plan is to keep dropping both of these prices down even more with massive solar panel / s…

it is crazy

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#118

Post by shimman »

panzi wrote: post #91
shimman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eh, am very biased as I design similar sites but I honestly prefer these to what would be likely string of random social media posts. I like having relevant graphics stickied while text is displayed alongside it (assuming by blog post you mean the typical page-like top to bottom approach). edit: damn, if these designs are hated what modern approaches do people like? I feel like scroll based text is a relatively unexp…

While I'm not that against to such a web page (when viewing it on a monitor, not a phone) I'd say follow these points: • Don't hijack any browser functionality. Scrolling shall scroll the document, the end. • Don't scale something to the screen size, breaking zoom! Especially don't do it so that when zooming causes a different scroll position and then it all jumps to a different slide. WTF! • Make it accessible! If y…

I don't disagree with those, and I'm able to do them myself but what do you mean by this?

"• Don't hijack any browser functionality. Scrolling shall scroll the document, the end."

How would you consider the page hijacking scroll functionality? You can scroll down normally. There are animations based on scroll position, maybe that's what you meant?

Re: Why SpaceX 2040 Revenue FCST $4.3T in highly unlikely

#119

Post by damnitbuilds »

criddell wrote: post #42
ck2 wrote: post #20

I'm still struggling with the idea that 4,400 millionaires are going to be created overnight (out of 22,000 employees) Because many of them are going to sell sell sell at least half of their shares Which then means the value will PLUMMET

I take it you are going to be shorting the stock?

Shorting is not as easy as you think. You have to time it right and you risk big losses.

KNOWING OpenAI et al WILL fail is not enough to make money from that.

Post reply on HN